Iraqi Civil War: Have at It!
What's the big deal about the potential for civil war in Iraq? Pretend it does happen. Why would it be such a problem? My analysis places civil war in Iraq at neutral to tragically positive on the global impact scale. Seriously, follow me on this.
The political impact of a civil war in Iraq is bad, but for whom? George Bush? A second term president, surrounded by an aging cabinet? If the fallout affects Bush's poll numbers, who does it hurt? It seems unlikely that anyone directly connected to the Iraq war has ambitions for '08. A strong candidate or Washington outsider should easily be able to dodge this bullet. There must be a few of those types around.
From a military standpoint, a civil war might work to our advantage. First, we can pull our troops out of harm's way because we're probably not going to want to take sides. The United States can monitor the situation and maybe lob in a cruise missile or two if "Saddam types" crop up to take advantage of a power vacuum. Thankfully, the democrats have "proven" that Iraq has no WMDs, so we can allow the conflict to rage on for decades, maybe even centuries, without too much concern.
To put it into global perspective, a civil war in Iraq would amount to Islam versus Islam. From my vantage point, a war over which brand of Islam is better is as petty as going to war over whether beer tastes great or is less filling. Perhaps if the Iraqi people are willing to kill each other over these differences, they are not yet ready to participate in global politics and they should be allowed time to grow up. Let fanatics fight fanatics for a while. It will distract them from going after other cultures they don't agree with.
Maybe the whole region will erupt into tribal warfare. That would turn back the clock to roughly the time period before the Western powers discovered oil mere inches under the sand. Hey, that's progress! We can put things back exactly as they were before the evil oil companies showed up.
So, where is the negative angle here? Of course, the Iraqis will suffer if a civil war begins. We have freed them to decide their destiny. Let's see what they want their future to look like.
The political impact of a civil war in Iraq is bad, but for whom? George Bush? A second term president, surrounded by an aging cabinet? If the fallout affects Bush's poll numbers, who does it hurt? It seems unlikely that anyone directly connected to the Iraq war has ambitions for '08. A strong candidate or Washington outsider should easily be able to dodge this bullet. There must be a few of those types around.
From a military standpoint, a civil war might work to our advantage. First, we can pull our troops out of harm's way because we're probably not going to want to take sides. The United States can monitor the situation and maybe lob in a cruise missile or two if "Saddam types" crop up to take advantage of a power vacuum. Thankfully, the democrats have "proven" that Iraq has no WMDs, so we can allow the conflict to rage on for decades, maybe even centuries, without too much concern.
To put it into global perspective, a civil war in Iraq would amount to Islam versus Islam. From my vantage point, a war over which brand of Islam is better is as petty as going to war over whether beer tastes great or is less filling. Perhaps if the Iraqi people are willing to kill each other over these differences, they are not yet ready to participate in global politics and they should be allowed time to grow up. Let fanatics fight fanatics for a while. It will distract them from going after other cultures they don't agree with.
Maybe the whole region will erupt into tribal warfare. That would turn back the clock to roughly the time period before the Western powers discovered oil mere inches under the sand. Hey, that's progress! We can put things back exactly as they were before the evil oil companies showed up.
So, where is the negative angle here? Of course, the Iraqis will suffer if a civil war begins. We have freed them to decide their destiny. Let's see what they want their future to look like.
5 Amendments:
Stephen Green over at VodkaPundit talked about this possibility in Iraq a little while ago, and has some interesting thoughts on the subject.
Except for the part about picking sides, we seem to be in agreement.
Good find, Nick!
You guys have got to be kidding? You call this thoughtless tripe "analysis"?
Firstly, after spending upwards of $250 billion, doing apparently nothing but creating a civil war in an already unstable region will not go down well with voters. Except for boters like, that is. Is this what we sacrificed 2200+ soldiers for? A failed effort on the part of this administration and those who supported it will easily be turned into a political noose, despite the dumb-dumbs at Fox asking "hey, what the big deal?" which is where you seem to have come up with this nonsense.
Secondly, a civil war will certainly not work to US advantage, even if we can get out there before all hell breaks loose. I'm hoping that doesn't happen, of course, but claiming that it doesn't or won't affect us is vastly clueless. Iran will surely move in even more forcefully, backing their Dawa party affiliates in the Iraqi government and possibly aiding in stepping up the violence against the Sunnis. We simply cannot let this happen as we would be viewed as the catalyst by which such ethnic cleansing took place. If Iran dominates the region, what then of Israel?
Thirdly, this is about as assinine as statement as anything I've seen lately,
To put it into global perspective, a civil war in Iraq would amount to Islam versus Islam. From my vantage point, a war over which brand of Islam is better is as petty as going to war over whether beer tastes great or is less filling.
Equating the ancient sects of Islam with beer tastes is your "analysis" of the situation, is it? Perhaps you are unware of the hundreds of years of war, revolution, strife and tension that has occurred between the sects of Christianity, eg. Catholocism, Protestantism, Puritanism. It has been only relatively recently that this Christian sectarian strife has been tempered by modernity. Still, Northern Ireland should ring a bell, shouldn't it? But in the same way the conflict in Northern Ireland was not based on strictly on religion, neither is the Shiite/Sunni tension. While defined as religious groups, the Sunnis and Shiites are also major political entities and we what we are seeing in Iraq is political strife, just as what was seen in Ulster.
Thebhc,
You're new to this blog, so you may not understand the level of sarcasm here. My main point is summarized in the following quotes (as opposed to the sarcastic comments that you chose to latch on to):
Perhaps if the Iraqi people are willing to kill each other over these differences, they are not yet ready to participate in global politics
We have freed them to decide their destiny. Let's see what they want their future to look like.
If Iraq does erupt into a civil war, it will be very sad. It will demostrate that the one thing that kept them from killing each other was the fact that Saddam was already doing it for them.
It's up to Iraq, though, to decide its own future. I will CERTAINLY feel cheated if civil war actually does break out. But, I will blame the Iraqis, not president Bush for the failure of democracy.
On another point:
Is this what we sacrificed 2200+ soldiers for?
Did you misplace your DNC talking points this morning? Are your RSS feeds busted? Why don't you know the exact number?
Perhaps you are unware of the hundreds of years of war, revolution, strife and tension that has occurred between the sects of Christianity, eg. Catholocism, Protestantism, Puritanism. ... Still, Northern Ireland should ring a bell, shouldn't it?
Please do not imply that I have any additional sympathy for these conflicts. Killing in the name of God is a rediculous concept.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home